Hello, I hope you are keeping really well. Subsequent to my e-mail
discussing the terribly perpetrated terror assault on the two Masjids
in Christchurch New Zealand, someone from Britain by the name of
Colin suggested that the Australian who carried this callous assault
reacted to Moslem terrorism. He also claimed, that terror ideology is
predominately dependent on Islamic related text, pointing, that terror
atrocities are often justified in Shariah based jural. With this
proposition, he has impinged on the actual definition of terrorism. It
is the act of perpetrating or subjugating innocent civilians to
violence or threaten them with doing so. This is done through
intimidation for essentially ideological motives. What Colin suggests
explicitly incentivizes terrorists in general to attempt justify their
heinousnesses. Terrorists are wholly insentient, they are perfectly
frigid. Shariah jural principles are not prompting detest nor racial
disparity. Nonetheless, Israeli terrorism is barely criticised within
the international community. Despite its strict prohibition by
international law, Israel uses white phosphorus to ruthlessly murder
defenceless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank on virtually a
periodical basis, yet, it has never been condemned nor sanctioned for
this. While when the Syrian regime awfully inflicted its nation with
the usage of chemical and biological weapons, the United States led an
air strike on the country, utterly destroying much of its major
infrastructure and carelessly killing dozens of innocent civilians.
The west and America in particular enforce what we may possibly call
double standard as it deals with these issues. Israel has the right to
unlimitedly defend itself while Palestinians must be invaded,
persecuted, completely sabotaged and still be satisfied. Where is
justice in this plainly discriminative disposal that is based on much
of racial aversion which is sufficient to fill an ocean? The United
States isn't eligible to lead a genuine democratic entity. Trump the
misanthropic, the gravely scathing and scoundrel chief is immensely
prosecutable. He is yet endorsed by many of those white supremacists
who often attend his enormously opprobrious rallies across the
country, warmly cheer and spat out of total favorable reception to
what he does and says. How is that not expected to chronologically
incite retaliation and consistently prompt despise of the States here
in the Muslim world? The United States incessantly instigates
motivational retaliation as it relentlessly stands by oppression. It
stands by Israel, backs potentates and their rise in our countries and
then, well, it strangely scolds us for not having democracy settled
properly. Isn't that just so louzy? I certainly do not propose the
hate of all westerns nor even Americans. I knew many people in America
and the west in genral who wholeheartedly decline what politics does.
They just like us, couldn't do much as we are mutually trammeled in
this situation. We are here just attempting to treat ourselves yet we
knew the miserable condition is unlikely to get changed. I would like
to furthermore mention to mr Colin, that the Shariah doesn't give
permission to the killing of innocent civilians in any manner.
Moreover, we have a very intriguing fatwa issued by Imam Malik, the
prominently recognised scholar of Medina, that if a woman is armed,
Muslim fighters shall attempt to the best of their capability to avoid
engaging with her in the battlefield. She hasn't been meant to fight,
even if she is armed, he illustrates. I suppose he means commonly,
typically or ordinarily. What about those who are defenceless? If
combatants have their weapons disposed, they are not to be assaulted.
They are to perhaps be taken into incarceration and treated leniently.
They are then to either be ransomed, freed at no charge or executed
for committing murder previously. Torture of war prisoners is
absolutely forbidden in Shariah, and Da'ish surely doesn't represent
its jural spirit. I attempted very concisely, to summarise some of the
major rulings regarding combat mission in Islamic Shariah. I welcome
questions from viewers. I just may ask people not to misquote text of
the Koran, Hadith or cut them out of context with witching scissors
to make it say what it doesn't meant to. I am a theologian and thence,
competent in my major. I therefore expect this to be respected and not
breached. I also may ask some people who belong to Atheism to quit
throwing tantrums while accusing me of doing so. This absurd tactic
doesn't work, okay? I also do not tolerate anyone attempting to deride
or speak sardonically about any aspect of my religious belief. Thank
you for reading, cordially.